Talk:Ghost Robot

Reviews
This is a very interesting article. The lead is simple and straight forward. This article contains plenty of organization about the studio. The story behind the name if also brief, with the explanation of the robot. I noticed that there is a lack of citations in the History section. There needs to be a citation after the story line that talks about the Robot Gardener who travels. There could also be citations that prove when the awards were awarded and facts about the new model. Lastly, a citation is needed to show when Mark De Pace joined the company as a full partner. The information under the Music Video heading, as well as the Entertainment heading, seems to be backed up by enough references. There is more coverage on the background rather than the actual content studio. I feel that there should be more information about the accomplishments and work details. I have not noticed any unneutral comments or claims made throughout the article. Most of the references that are provided, are mainly blogs that hold very little information. The lengthy references, which held the most information, are mainly about entertainment and not the main idea. Jade8068 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have read all this article and I feel that you have provided all of the Necessary Information you have provided and everything was wonderful. You provided the correct sources ,the Lead was great and your opening was great also Mmcrumpton (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

,, maybe you can have a look at these five edits. (And Mmcrumpton, there is no "you".) Dr Aaij (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)